Desecration

As it did two years ago, the House overwhelmingly approved a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday giving Congress the power to outlaw defacement of the American flag. The amendment, which faces a sterner test in the Senate and must be ratified by 38 state legislatures before it can be incorporated in the Constitution, cleared the House by a 310-114 margin. That was 27 more votes than needed for the two-thirds majority required to adopt constitutional changes. It grants Congress the exclusive power to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the flag without actually defining what that means.

Unmistakable thumbprint in Phoebus June 29 marked the end of a most productive career for Arleen F. Crittenden as executive director of the Phoebus Improvement League. Under her leadership, Phoebus has seen the renovation and restoration of several historic structures and public sites, which have become homes to vital business and social concerns. We now have: A beautiful public library branch; Increased modern office space; Two well-lighted and landscaped parking areas; A continually growing business community with a high rate of commercial property occupancy; More community-based events; Significant increases in tourist and local shopping trade; Programs through which many of our business owners have upgraded their storefronts and residents have repaired and improved their homes; And better pedestrian- and motorist-friendly corridors of access to Phoebus -- all of which equate to a healthier community and higher retail tax revenues for the city.

JUSTICE WILLIAM BRENNAN, MAJORITY OPINION: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS, DISSENTING OPINION "Sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value - both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it."

No flag amendment Robb shows courage to protect the Bill of Rights Those who love this country, this land of liberty, are strongly divided on an issue that involves our basic freedoms. The U.S. Senate will likely vote today on a proposal that would amend the Constitution so it would be legal to punish protesters who intentionally damage the American flag. The trouble is, Congress would damage the Bill of Rights in the process. Sen. Chuck Robb deserves congratulations for sticking by his opposition to the flag amendment.

Last month the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Constitution outlawing desecration of the American flag. Supporters say the flag deserves legal protection, while opponents say burning the flag is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Virginia's senators, Democrat Charles Robb and Republican John Warner, are on opposite sides of the issue. This is where they stand.

Here we go again. Once more, there's an effort under way to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow a ban on desecration of the U.S. flag. Once more we'll say why such an effort is so misguided: The Constitution should be amended sparingly. Only the most compelling problems should be rectified by amendment. Where is the problem? There simply isn't one. Incidents of physical desecration of the flag are rare. Which suggests to us that amendment proponents have other motives.

In a red, white and blue flurry of patriotic sentiment, Virginia's congressional delegation endorsed President Bush's call Tuesday for a constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the American flag. Nine members of the 10-man Virginia delegation were contacted Tuesday evening. Each decried last week's Supreme Court decision that banned criminal penalties for flag burning, calling the decision "regrettable" and "wrong-headed." Rep. D. French Slaughter Jr., R-7th, could not be reached.

NATIONAL DISGRACE Revulsion and disappointment, followed quickly by seething anger and deep sadness, sum up the reactions of Virginia's American Legion war veterans to the recent Supreme Court decision holding that the desecration of the American flag is a legitimate form of political protest. The war veteran risked his life in foreign lands and seas for our country, and yes, for our flag, which is the banner, the symbol of all our country's national values. To desecrate the Stars and Stripes is to desecrate the memory of the more than 1 million who fought and died in its defense.

It seemed like every day was Flag Day growing up in Hampton. We'd start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance, one student being asked to come forward and lead the class. I vividly remember the day in second grade when it was my turn. I thought it was the greatest honor in the world to lead my class in pledging allegiance to our flag. I still do. Many years removed from the second grade, I'm now past national president of the largest women's patriotic organization in the world, the American Legion Auxiliary.

How surprising. In a contest between reason and emotion in the House of Representatives, emotion prevailed by a tally of 312-120. The House approved a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the states the power to prohibit desecration of the American flag. Desecrating the flag is abhorrent, but the amendment is a bad idea. Americans must be allowed freedom of expression, even when - especially when - that expression is offensive. One would think defenders of the flag would want to allow this right on behalf of "the occasional imbecile" - in the words of Rep. Robert C. Scott of Newport News - because the behavior is so repulsive it discredits the imbecile's cause.

Last month the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Constitution outlawing desecration of the American flag. Supporters say the flag deserves legal protection, while opponents say burning the flag is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Virginia's senators, Democrat Charles Robb and Republican John Warner, are on opposite sides of the issue. This is where they stand.

As it did two years ago, the House overwhelmingly approved a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday giving Congress the power to outlaw defacement of the American flag. The amendment, which faces a sterner test in the Senate and must be ratified by 38 state legislatures before it can be incorporated in the Constitution, cleared the House by a 310-114 margin. That was 27 more votes than needed for the two-thirds majority required to adopt constitutional changes. It grants Congress the exclusive power to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the flag without actually defining what that means.

Here we go again. Once more, there's an effort under way to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow a ban on desecration of the U.S. flag. Once more we'll say why such an effort is so misguided: The Constitution should be amended sparingly. Only the most compelling problems should be rectified by amendment. Where is the problem? There simply isn't one. Incidents of physical desecration of the flag are rare. Which suggests to us that amendment proponents have other motives.

It seemed like every day was Flag Day growing up in Hampton. We'd start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance, one student being asked to come forward and lead the class. I vividly remember the day in second grade when it was my turn. I thought it was the greatest honor in the world to lead my class in pledging allegiance to our flag. I still do. Many years removed from the second grade, I'm now past national president of the largest women's patriotic organization in the world, the American Legion Auxiliary.

The Senate Tuesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress to pass legislation barring physical desecration of the American flag. It was the second time this year that the Senate rejected a constitutional amendment approved by the House. The vote was 63-36 in favor of the amendment, three short of the two-thirds needed to propose an amendment for ratification by the states. Last June, the House approved 312-120 an amendment allowing state legislatures as well as Congress to enact flag-protection laws.

How surprising. In a contest between reason and emotion in the House of Representatives, emotion prevailed by a tally of 312-120. The House approved a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the states the power to prohibit desecration of the American flag. Desecrating the flag is abhorrent, but the amendment is a bad idea. Americans must be allowed freedom of expression, even when - especially when - that expression is offensive. One would think defenders of the flag would want to allow this right on behalf of "the occasional imbecile" - in the words of Rep. Robert C. Scott of Newport News - because the behavior is so repulsive it discredits the imbecile's cause.

To recognize the importance of First Amendment values and the strength of the majority logic of the Supreme Court is not to say that the "particular" contempt known as flag burning deserves constitutional protection as free speech. However compelling the court's rendition of abstract First Amendment logic, the substance of the matter is that most Americans believe the flag is deserving of special status and protection, and for good reason. The flag does not deserve protection merely because government has designated the flag as "the" national symbol, but rather, as Justice William Rehnquist noted, because 200 years of our history have done so. Moreover, the flag is a particularly unique symbol.

I put a stamp on a letter the other day. The stamp bore a picture of the American flag. I purposely turned the stamp upside down before sticking it on the envelope to show a friend how some folks used to protest America's involvement in Vietnam. Will I commit a crime if I do that again? Under a constitutional amendment passed Wednesday by the United States House of Representatives, I'm not sure. In the name of political correctness, Congress opened a Pandora's box of political repression.